3 ms·
The point at issue is: What subset of things (what individuals, groups, ideas, cultures) "deserve" to continue? I agree that your reductio ad absurdum argument
by akoboldfrying 2y ago
The point at issue is: What subset of things (what individuals, groups, ideas, cultures) "deserve" to continue?
I agree that your reductio ad absurdum argument shows that "nothing deserves to continue" is in untenable position. But surely the opposite extreme (namely, "everything deserves to continue") is just as absurd?
So the question remains: Where to draw the line?
- h0l0cube 2y ago‘The people’. Whatever scale that is. Democracy as imperfect and inefficient it is, is our best vehicle for the collective consciousness (of humanity) to decide at the scale of a polity. A family can decide amongst themselves what’s best for their infant, and as they grow, the person can decide for themselves as an individual. Moralizing on the behalf of others, is at best performative, at worst harmful and denigrating. It of course gets messy when we’re talking about irreversible decisions made by parents, but I don’t believe that’s relevant for cochlear implants. Certainly not relevant for continuing a culture either